After reading the tosh that is this thread it is abundantly clear to me why we, as a campaign have got not-very-far

Actually this campaign has got much further than you probably think.

I do not now raise the issue of 9/11 at work (been sacked once, warned by management thrice at different schools). I now teach physics in a private school but sixth-formers and a couple of staff have raised the subject with me. These were for me joyful moments indeed.

9/11 truth has a life of its own now and I believe that it will eventually have to be acknowledged and dealt with in the public domain.

The only point of asking for an independent public inquiry is to publicise the issue, not to get one. An Inquiry carried out within the current power paradigm would expose nothing useful. The people who are at the top of the pyramid, who sanctioned 9/11 and through money control our governments, will NEVER allow themselves to be exposed, nor anyone else close to the real centre of power.

The most one could reasonably expect from an Inquiry would be a few hapless low-level military and political conspirators thrown to the wolves.

Is it not obvious that power never really investigates itself?......it rather carries out public relations exercises designed to convince the public that we can trust our system. The newspapers and TV do the rest.

Which begs the question as to why -given that passage of utter clarity- is the rest of the thread jammed with pidegon poo?

C.

This made me laugh but there's something serious here I suppose.

Once people start discussing 'religious' issues it is bound to be a big turn-off to many visitors and users of this site. I find Danny's posts (as some sort of prophet for Muad'Dib) bizarre much in the way that David Shayler's transformation into self-proclaimed 'Messiah' was disturbing.

However, in spiritual matters we are dealing with things that are very difficult, if not impossible, to trash objectively because our own deepest beliefs are similarly impervious to impartial logic. We do our best and make our own judgements.......then we can only hope that others will agree with us.....or correct whatever mistakes in our thinking exist.

On this forum, seeing as we are all supposed to agree that 9/11 was an 'inside job', it is surely natural that we should struggle to find issues and principles around which to unite. It is natural that in such a process there will be 'pigeon-poo' as well as the development of unifying positions that will hopefully prove to be of great value.

For me......at the moment........it seems that the long-term goal needs to be the abolition of the money-creation system and the inversion of the power-pyramid (or military model on which nearly all organisations in society are structured).

i.e. total revolution in a manner unseen over the past thousands of years.

Hmmm.

Humans need to devise structures within which power cannot be concentrated....perhaps self-sufficient communities of a size within which everybody can know everybody. In such an environment power would necessarily rest at the bottom, I believe.......because we are predominantly good in our intentions and the only reason criminals of every kind and colour can thrive is because they carry out their schemes in private and the criminality gets built into the structure of our society and comes to be seen by 'we the people' as an abstract rather than a personalised reality.

If everyone's actions had to take place within a community to which one was responsible I do not believe communities would put up with dirty business. (of course if such pipe dreams came to pass these communities would realise that the reason for their very existence was to prevent exactly this.....criminal, antisocial and any behaviour that did not serve the common good).

So we all have our visions of where we should be trying to go.....where is a better place to air them than here?

If these kinds of debates take place there will always be loads of people who think one is talking c*ap. That's inevitable.

It is fairly obvious to me that at the root of all our realities is our collective spirituality.

I played a gig at a garden party in front of the Natural History Museum yesterday. This might easily be the most beautiful building in England. It is amazing. Stunning.

Taking in its beauty I began to notice the symbolic figures built into the structure. Then one realises they are everywhere. The whole place is dominated from bottom to very top by these symbols which are clearly masonic.

....so even if you reject religion, note that 'the other side' take it very seriously indeed. If you look into it you will see that Masonry is basically a Luciferian religion, a religion that promotes the interests and power of a special group within society against the interests of all.

The God of Christianity is universalist and is for the common good and the Love of all.

As a paid-up member of the Pidegon Anti-Defamation League, I want to know why Pidegon poo is being denigrated ._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

Last edited by outsider on Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:01 pm; edited 1 time in total

Dear Sir,
I should like to object to quite a crowd of factual errors in Mr Mendick’s account ‘7/7 was an MI5 plot, Holocaust Denier claims in BBC film’ (July 10th) . I wasn't ‘paid’ by the BBC for doing this (which your article mentions six times), any more than I am claiming that 7/7 ‘was an MI5 plot.’ He should have made clear that I have been researching a manuscript which is why I have wanted to contact persons involved and visit the locations: however I don’t believe he can find any evidence that I have ever ‘pestered’ the victim-families. I especially object to his grotesque suggestion that I phoned up the Father of one of the victims ‘to tell him how he believed the man’s daughter’s body had been planted at the site of the Tavistock Square bus bombing… at a later time.’ I made no such suggestion, and rather phoned up to ascertain the time of the last phone call he received from his daughter. That family chose to make statements to two newspapers over the fate of their daughter, in the wake of July 7th, and if Mr Mendick is reporting that they were upset by a web-comment I made about the situation, one would have hoped he would have added that I deleted that comment as soon as they so advised me.

Mr Mendick swings over to a quite different subject and makes the nutty claim that a web-essay of mine said ‘that Auschwitz was like a holiday camp where inmates sunned themselves by an elegant swimming pool etc’ – nothing remotely like that is contained in that essay as he’d see if he bothered to check it. I haven't posted on any ‘far right’ website.

You say I am ‘believed’ to have a PhD in astronomy – Mr Mendick phoned me three times, could he not even get that right? An astronomy degree would have no relevance to this topic, whereas my PhD is in history of science, and I reckon this is a quite relevant background as 7/7 was a technological type of crime.

I should like to object to quite a crowd of factual errors in Mr Mendick’s account...

...Mr Mendick swings over to a quite different subject and makes the nutty claim that a web-essay of mine said ‘that Auschwitz was like a holiday camp where inmates sunned themselves by an elegant swimming pool etc’ – nothing remotely like that is contained in that essay as he’d see if he bothered to check it.

Nick Kollerstrom wrote:

Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming-pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates, who would sunbathe there on Saturday and Sunday afternoons while watching the water-polo matches; and shown the paintings from its art class, which still exist; and told about the camp library which had some forty-five thousand volumes for inmates to choose from, plus a range of periodicals; and the six camp orchestras at Auschwitz/Birkenau, its the theatrical performances, including a children’s opera, the weekly camp cinema, and even the special brothel established there. - source

I should like to object to quite a crowd of factual errors in Mr Mendick’s account...

...Mr Mendick swings over to a quite different subject and makes the nutty claim that a web-essay of mine said ‘that Auschwitz was like a holiday camp where inmates sunned themselves by an elegant swimming pool etc’ – nothing remotely like that is contained in that essay as he’d see if he bothered to check it.

Nick Kollerstrom wrote:

Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming-pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates, who would sunbathe there on Saturday and Sunday afternoons while watching the water-polo matches; and shown the paintings from its art class, which still exist; and told about the camp library which had some forty-five thousand volumes for inmates to choose from, plus a range of periodicals; and the six camp orchestras at Auschwitz/Birkenau, its the theatrical performances, including a children’s opera, the weekly camp cinema, and even the special brothel established there. - source

I think he is referring to the fact that this paragraph did not appear in his "Auschwitz gas chamber illusion" but instead in his "School trips to Auschwitz" essay which has been moved to a different location on CODOH's site and had his name removed from the title; he now appears to be attempting 'revisionism' regarding his writing of it, though he initally had no problem with acknowledging his authorship.

Nick K wrote:

Thanks for alluding to my recent article ‘School trips to Auschwitz.’ (1) You quote:
Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming-pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates … etc,
And ask: ‘Where does he get his vital research and evidence? It's ordained in the stars!’ Well, if you’d bothered to follow the reference there given it would have taken you to the thread ‘Auschwitz in Memoriam’, where I give 15 references in support of those statements. (2) If you care to peruse that and then comment here, I’m sure we would all appreciate it.

An astronomy degree would have no relevance to this topic, whereas my PhD is in history of science

astro3 wrote:

Mr Mendick cannot bear to mention that I have a PhD in the history of astronomy – that could be rather relevant to the 7/7 research, because as a science historian my training involves the accessing of primary-source data and not relying upon gossip and hearsay. That's why I use Jewwatch and JudicialInc as sources. No, instead he claimed I have a PhD in astronomy, which further makes me seem a mere figure of fun because it has zero relevance to the subject.

I should like to object to quite a crowd of factual errors in Mr Mendick’s account...

...Mr Mendick swings over to a quite different subject and makes the nutty claim that a web-essay of mine said ‘that Auschwitz was like a holiday camp where inmates sunned themselves by an elegant swimming pool etc’ – nothing remotely like that is contained in that essay as he’d see if he bothered to check it.

Nick Kollerstrom wrote:

Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming-pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates, who would sunbathe there on Saturday and Sunday afternoons while watching the water-polo matches; and shown the paintings from its art class, which still exist; and told about the camp library which had some forty-five thousand volumes for inmates to choose from, plus a range of periodicals; and the six camp orchestras at Auschwitz/Birkenau, its the theatrical performances, including a children’s opera, the weekly camp cinema, and even the special brothel established there. - source

The 'source' now comes up 'page unavailable'._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

I should like to object to quite a crowd of factual errors in Mr Mendick’s account...

...Mr Mendick swings over to a quite different subject and makes the nutty claim that a web-essay of mine said ‘that Auschwitz was like a holiday camp where inmates sunned themselves by an elegant swimming pool etc’ – nothing remotely like that is contained in that essay as he’d see if he bothered to check it.

Nick Kollerstrom wrote:

Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming-pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates, who would sunbathe there on Saturday and Sunday afternoons while watching the water-polo matches; and shown the paintings from its art class, which still exist; and told about the camp library which had some forty-five thousand volumes for inmates to choose from, plus a range of periodicals; and the six camp orchestras at Auschwitz/Birkenau, its the theatrical performances, including a children’s opera, the weekly camp cinema, and even the special brothel established there. - source

was "dodgy" for including content by the Jewish racial supremacist Daniel Pipes.

As you haven't had time to help us with this, I've taken the liberty of preparing a short guide. I think I'm beginning to see:

==========================================
"How to spot a "dodgy" website, source, or person"

First of all, use your "common sense" - if a website has any material that promotes the ridiculous idea that Hitler's persecution of Jews was motivated by anything other than irrational blind hatred, or suggests that the Jewish declaration of war on Germany in 1933 was a declaration of war, it is likely to be "dodgy".

If it explains the banking scam, that should be a BIG clue - ANY site that does so in the context of understanding this period of history is almost certainly "dodgy".

If it doesn't condemn Jews like Benjamin Freedman, Myron Fagan, David Cole etc. as "self-hating"...

If it doesn't state clearly that not believing a consensus historical meme is comparable to not believing the earth is round...

If it fails to remind you that asking certain questions - "dodgy" questions - is inherently "dodgy", the source may have a bad case of "dodgy".

If it tries to tell you that contemporary book burning in Germany and other countries is in any way comparable with those evil Nazi book burners...

If it doesn't use the word "odious" when referring to "dodgy" historians and researchers, steer clear. You might catch "dodgy".

If it advances the absurd notion that fining and jailing dissenters from official truth is akin to supression of "thoughtcrime"...

If the writer doesn't understand and endorse the concept of "free speech - with exceptions", he's probably "dodgy". Indeed, if he claims freedom to write about anything, how can you trust anything he writes?

"Dodgy" sufferers can become unnaturally emboldened, and over sensitive to use of language. On being confronted with phrases like "legitimate research" or "respected historians" they may ask: "legitimate?... respected? - says who?"; or even worse, "why?".

Watch out for unhealthy interest in "the media". One common "dodgy" delusion is that those who control it will use it's influence to their own ends. "Dodgy" can cause people to look at media control, begin to see patterns, and even believe that these could be meaningful in the real world.

Some "dodgy" people will try to make you think that the phrase "hate speech" only recently appeared in public discourse. In the advanced stages you might see them claiming that it could somehow be used to shut down debate, steer your mind, or even that this could be orchestrated, or be directed to some purpose.

"Dodgy" can make people think that searching for and speaking your "truth" is somehow even more important than not "offending" anyone. It can also lead to questioning the obvious - that "memory" is an independent entity that can be "offended", and has feelings and rights of it's own.

"Dodgy" blinds people to the fact that if a historical meme is constantly reinforced, that is simply because it's true, and those that do so only want us to know the truth.

People with "dodgy" forget that some things are politically "correct" and others are politically "incorrect". They may even start to reconsider things they were taught at school! This can lead to the dangerous practise of thinking for themselves, or diminish faith in our wonderful "democracy" and "free press".

Our leaders are vigilantly working to stamp out the scourge that is "dodgy". Until this is achieved, it is your solemn duty to be ever watchful, and scream "DODGY!" whenever you encounter it. I hope the above will help you recognise this terrible threat. Although definitive diagnosis of "dodgy" is ultimately the prerogative of our elders and betters, take no chances - surely it is better to simply not read or pay any heed to anything that might be "dodgy"?

================================

Anyway Ian, it would be comforting to know that I properly understand the dangers of "dodgy", while still being able to use and quote "legitimate" sources. I'm just a beginner, and don't want to be too controversial. So how about this:

I haven't seen many posters here defending the banking scam (*), and there seems to be a widespread understanding of the corrupt power it gives the banksters, and it's geopolitical significance.

So Ian, my question now is:

Can you list a single website, which explains the banking scam in the context of understanding this period of history, that you consider to be non "dodgy"?

=======================================
* - with one sly and subtle exception - can anyone guess who?_________________If you want to know who is really in control, ask yourself who you cannot criticise.
"The hunt for 'anti-semites' is a hunt for pockets of resistance to the NWO"-- Israel Shamir
"What we in America call terrorists are really groups of people that reject the international system..." - Heinz "Henry" Kissinger

Simon, as far as I can tell (and I haven't dug deeply) (1) the money masters and (2) the history of money are both example of websites that discuss this topic without being racist, which is my definition of dodgy

kbo234 wrote:
Quote:
..the 'soap' and 'lampshades' horrors seem to have been discredited and 'dropped'.

No they haven't. The 'soap' thing was mentioned this very morning on Radio 4, "Start the Week". Just a little flash.

29m45s into the "podcast".

Oh... there it was again... on Radio 4 "A Good Read", the edition 1st broadcast Tue 22nd, repeated last Friday night. Unfortunately I was on my way out of the country when I heard it and couldn't grab the link or audio, but Sue McGregor was lauding a book which told us how some Jews were called "soap", for what she said were "obvious reasons", - which of course she didn't elaborate on.

She was also very happy that the book "attacked white people" which she thought was "marvellous"._________________If you want to know who is really in control, ask yourself who you cannot criticise.
"The hunt for 'anti-semites' is a hunt for pockets of resistance to the NWO"-- Israel Shamir
"What we in America call terrorists are really groups of people that reject the international system..." - Heinz "Henry" Kissinger

What a shame the press feel unable to cover Nick's more recent enquiries into 7/7.

What a shame Nick can't prevent himself from gratuitously offending Death Camp survivors, relatives of the millions of victims, and Jews in general._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

Rather than condescending to discuss the factual issues raised, you complainants have taken part in a public lynch party. You must be extremely frightened of unaffiliated studies of the death camps._________________http://niqnaq.wordpress.com

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum